CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE.—3 BLAND. 597

sold under an execution, founded on a judgment against the legal
holder of the estate. In those cases, as insisted on by the de

That upon the other judgment obtained in October, 1802, by the State for
the use of the defendant Brogden, considerable payments had been made,
which had not been credited And that executions had been issued upon
those judgments and laid upon the lands so purchased by the plaintiff
Whereupon this bill prayed for an inunction to stay further proceedings on
the said executions so far as related to the said lands, and for general relief,
&c

KILTY. C , 22d October. 1817 —The bill is not sworn to, and there is no
bond These detects might be supplied, but, on perusing the bill, I am not
satisfied, that an injunction ought to be issued It does not appear that the
complainant has any interest in the lands against that of creditors, or that
it is competent for him to enquire into the sum due If, on the bill being
sworn to and bond executed, the counsel should file any observations in
writing they will be considered

Immediately after which the bill was sworn to, and the plain tiff's solicitor,
in his remarks filed as suggested, leferred to and relied upon the case of
Hampsen v Edelm 2 H & J 64, in which no bond was required, and he
observed, that this was not an application by a defendant at law to stay pro-
ceedings on a judgment against him, but to prevent a sale of particular
land, because it did not belong to the defendant at law Upon which the
bill was again submitted

KILTY, C , 28th October, 1817 —Since the order of the 22d instant, remarks
in writing have been made by the counsel for the complainant, and the case
of Hampsen v. Edelm in this Court has been referred to. No bond appears
to have been required in that case Whereupon it js Ordered, that subpoena
and injunction issue as prayed

It is to be observed, however that one of the judgments exhibited was
obtained in 1802, before the last purchase of the land, but supposing the
complainant to have an equitable interest therein, the other circumstances,
stated in the bill may be sufficient grounds for the injunction, which can
be further considered at the healing of a motion for dissolution

CROSS v MULLIKIN —This bill vras filed on the 2d of April, 1824, by Thomas
Cross against Benjamin H Mullikin William Gwynn of John, William Wil-
kins, Joseph Wilkins and George Howard The bill, after setting forth the
facts and circumstances as stated in the following opinion of the Chancellor,
prayed for special and general relief and for an injunction to stay all fur-
ther proceedings on the said judgment and execution, and also commanding
the said Mulkin and Gwynn not to receive the amount of the said judgment
until the further order of the Court

To this bill was subjoined an affidavit, made by the plaintiff before a Jus-
tice of the Peace, of the truth of the facts therein set forth in the usual
form Upon which the bill was submitted to the Chancellor

JOHNSON, C , 2d April, 1824 —Benjamin H Mullikin having endorsed the
notes of George Howard, as well as notes of Howard and Beatty, his de-
eased partner, to a considerable amount, to indemnify him on the 25th of
September, 1817, Howard gave Mulhkm a mortgage on a tract of land